Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea

From: Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea
Date: 2012-05-26 15:54:25
Message-ID: 4FC0FCB1.402@timbira.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 26-05-2012 01:45, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Ouch! But removing pg_size_pretty(numeric) causes another usability
> issue, e.g., pg_size_pretty(pg_xlog_location_diff(...)) fails. So how about
> removing pg_size_pretty(bigint) to resolve those two issues?
> I guess pg_size_pretty(numeric) is a bit slower than bigint version, but
> I don't think that such a bit slowdown of pg_size_pretty() becomes
> a matter practically. No?
>
That's what I proposed at [1]. +1 for dropping the pg_size_pretty(bigint).

[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4F315F6C.8030700@timbira.com

--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira - Timbira http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2012-05-26 15:58:26 Re: VIP: new format for psql - shell - simple using psql in shell
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2012-05-26 15:39:23 VIP: new format for psql - shell - simple using psql in shell